United States v. Agustin Madrid ( 2020 )

Case: 20-10106 Document: 00515584841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 30, 2020
No. 20-10106
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Agustin Madrid, also known as Augustin Madrid,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-273-1
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Agustin Madrid appeals his 188-month, within-guidelines range
sentence for possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. He contends that the
district court procedurally erred by determining, in denying his motion for a
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10106 Document: 00515584841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2020
No. 20-10106
downward variance, that it lacked discretion to impose a downward variance
based on a policy disagreement with the Guidelines. Because Madrid did not
object in the district court on that specific ground, we review this issue for
plain error. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013).
In light of the entire record, it is neither clear nor obvious—but,
rather, subject to reasonable dispute—that the district court’s comments
reflected a belief that it lacked discretion to impose a variant sentence based
on a policy disagreement with the drug Guidelines. See Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). The court expressly stated that it would
take Madrid’s policy-based arguments into consideration in setting his
sentence. And the court explicitly based its denial of a variance on the
arguments in the Government’s response to Madrid’s motion, which
addressed only the merits of Madrid’s policy-based contentions and made no
reference to the court’s (lack of) discretion to grant a policy-based variance.
Accordingly, Madrid fails to demonstrate plain procedural error. See id.The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2